so we are sopossed to go 18-0 every year now simply because we did it once? So am I sopossed to expect Manning to throw 49 TDs every year now cause he did it once? Thats stupid. Maybe when teh Colts had their full star staff of last year they could have coached up a back up QB the way we did but now that you have a bunch of rookie coaches including yoru head coach you wouldnt go 9-7 with a back up. What this coaching staff was able to do last year was amazing. And now that we have lost soem of our staff i am sure we couldnt do it again this year because it was that good and not an easy thing to do.

Now that its official that Mudd will retire and collect his $$$, I hope some diligent scribe does a retrospective on his coaching career, and discovers who the 'real' pioneer was in the field of taping opposing teams' signals.

Tas - No you're not supposed to go 18-0 every year, but the team that Cassell had was the same team Brady had that went 18-0. And as far as manning is concerned, if the future pieces are the same, then the expecation of a high number of TD passes exists. Same with Brady.

Look everyone used to talk about the vaunted colts offense. If that expectation wasn't there, then it wouldn't have been talked about either here or in the media.

As I said, I believe the coaching staff did a great job that was helped by an easier than usual schedule.

Shiner - good idea. Jimmy Johnson can be that scribes first interview.

Tas - No you're not supposed to go 18-0 every year, but the team that Cassell had was the same team Brady had that went 18-0. And as far as manning is concerned, if the future pieces are the same, then the expecation of a high number of TD passes exists. Same with Brady. Look everyone used to talk about the vaunted colts offense. If that expectation wasn't there, then it wouldn't have been talked about either here or in the media. As I said, I believe the coaching staff did a great job that was helped by an easier than usual schedule. Shiner - good idea. Jimmy Johnson can be that scribes first interview. Posted by underdogg

Q: How about the spying thing Jimmy. You're a coach does that bother you what Belichick did?

JJ: Oh please. I've said it on our show. Eighteen years ago a scout for the chiefs told me what they did, and he said what you need to do is just take your camera and you go and zoom in on the signal caller and that way you can sync it up. The problem is that if they're not on the press box side you can't do it from the press box, you have to do it from the sideline. This was 18 years ago.

Q: You think the NFL came down too hard on them?

JJ: No, no, I said it on the show. He was wrong for doing it for the simple reason that the league knew this was going on not ust in New England but around the league. And the league sent out the memorandum to all of the teams saying you cannot do this. And os that's when Bill Belichick was wrong. After he got the memorandum saying don't do it any more, he did it.

Q: Did you ever steal signals?

JJ: Oh in a heartbeat, yeah. Yes I did.

Q: Via video, Jimmy? Or no?

JJ: Oh yeah, I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league. Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you're going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace.

Q: But did you do it by taping the signal caller?

JJ: Yeah.

Q: Oh you did.

JJ: That's what I'm saying. I was saying one of Marty Schottenheimers scouts, Mark Hatley, who has passed away now, Mark told me that's how they did it, and Howard Mudd their offensive line coach with Kansas City, who now coaches for Tony Dungy, he was the best in the entire league at stealing signals.

Q: Where'd you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?

JJ: My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box. So you'd just put an extra camera up with your camera crew in the press box who zoomed in on the signal callers. That's the best way to do it, but anyway you can't always do that because the press box camera crew might be on the same side as the opposing team. If they're on the same side as the opposing team that's when you need to do it from the sideline.

Q: Also with some operations and some teams they have equipment set up within the stadium so they can just run it ack and check what's going on during the game anyway.

JJ: Oh I'll tell you some of the stuff that goes on it's almost comical.

Q: Jimmy don't you think using contraptions like that goes against the spirit of football?

JJ: Well that's why the league put in that you can't use any electronic equipment, during the game, locker room, press box, sideline, this type of thing. They ruled against it and again that's why Bill Belichick was wrong.

Q: How much of an advantage would it give them?

JJ: Well you know Bradshaw and I had a talk back and forth on this. I did it a few times and then I stopped doing it because I didn't think we got much out of it to be honest with you. But games are so close... If it gives you one single play in the ballgame it might be the difference. But again, he was wrong for doing it after the memorandum was sent out by the league, because the league knew that other teams were doing it. And so... it was a commonplace thing though.

Guess it will be interesting to see how the Colts do not having Dungy as coach and this will be Manning's first year with a new OC. Sure promoting from within will bring some familarity. I'd say the pressing issues on this team will be can they get a running game going this year, they haven't really had one in the last 1 1/2 years. How will the o-line be with new blood and a new Oline coach? Can the defense stop the run? Can Bob Sanders stay healthy, granted Bullett looked really good as his replacement. Will Gonzalez be the Reggie Wayne early 2000's answer in pairing up with a star receiver (at the time was Harrison), or will he end up being more like a Jerome Pathon or Terrance Wilkins?

I think Mike is right - I have gone on record on this site ad infintum (or so it seems) on this very subject. Wiz - why would I mention Jimmy Johnson, otherwise.

1. I find it interesting that Jimmy Johnson is using a dead man as his reference. That's a good way to make sure his story can't be corroborated.

2. Assuming JJ is telling the truth - does he actually implicate Mudd as implicate mudd as originator of the practice, no. He says that Mudd was the best at it, which to me means he was the best at deciphering the signals. As to how the chiefs did it, Jimmy actually changes his story in the interview. At first he said the kc scout told Jimmy that KC used a snapshot camera. Later, Jimmy intimates (but is not specific) that kc used video. Which is correct or are both correct? How come no one followed up on this in New England? How come no one asked Marty Schottenheimer?

What pats fans want to do here is make the KC mudd the same as NE Belichick. So the question has to be: did Mudd initiate the practice for KC? JJ's comments do not even approach an answwer to that question. Mudd has never been an NFL head coach. I think it would be a stretch to assume he had the authority within the organization to initiate such a practice. So, just as I don't label Mangini or McDaniels or any of the other patriot assistants as cheaters, I don't label mudd that way. If it is true about mudd (remember the authority on this is dead), I assume he was just following orders. The pats cheating was organizational from the top levels meaning Belichick and anyone who had the authority to stop him from the practice.

3. Was this a rule on the books at the time Mudd was at KC 20 years ago? Even if so, I assume KC followed the memo (if one sent) reiterating that the practice was illegal unlike Belichick and the pats.

4. Does Johnson anywhere at anytime say that Mudd was doing this for the colts? No. So how does the Mudd story apply to Mudd, and more importantly, the colts organization and Tony Dungy?

5. If you are trying to label Dungy a hypocrite for having someone on the staff who may have been forced to do this as an assistant for another team 20 years ago, be my guest. But first explain to me why Dungy is a hypocrite?

I am happy to go on and on and on and on about this if you prefer. It only solidifies the fact that Belichick systematically cheated and provides only a fandom basis (read: irrational) on your part to dislike the colts and dungy.

I think Mike is right - I have gone on record on this site ad infintum (or so it seems) on this very subject. Wiz - why would I mention Jimmy Johnson, otherwise. 1. I find it interesting that Jimmy Johnson is using a dead man as his reference. That's a good way to make sure his story can't be corroborated. 2. Assuming JJ is telling the truth - does he actually implicate Mudd as implicate mudd as originator of the practice, no. He says that Mudd was the best at it, which to me means he was the best at deciphering the signals. As to how the chiefs did it, Jimmy actually changes his story in the interview. At first he said the kc scout told Jimmy that KC used a snapshot camera. Later, Jimmy intimates (but is not specific) that kc used video. Which is correct or are both correct? How come no one followed up on this in New England? How come no one asked Marty Schottenheimer? What pats fans want to do here is make the KC mudd the same as NE Belichick. So the question has to be: did Mudd initiate the practice for KC? JJ's comments do not even approach an answwer to that question. Mudd has never been an NFL head coach. I think it would be a stretch to assume he had the authority within the organization to initiate such a practice. So, just as I don't label Mangini or McDaniels or any of the other patriot assistants as cheaters, I don't label mudd that way. If it is true about mudd (remember the authority on this is dead), I assume he was just following orders. The pats cheating was organizational from the top levels meaning Belichick and anyone who had the authority to stop him from the practice. 3. Was this a rule on the books at the time Mudd was at KC 20 years ago? Even if so, I assume KC followed the memo (if one sent) reiterating that the practice was illegal unlike Belichick and the pats. 4. Does Johnson anywhere at anytime say that Mudd was doing this for the colts? No. So how does the Mudd story apply to Mudd, and more importantly, the colts organization and Tony Dungy? 5. If you are trying to label Dungy a hypocrite for having someone on the staff who may have been forced to do this as an assistant for another team 20 years ago, be my guest. But first explain to me why Dungy is a hypocrite? I am happy to go on and on and on and on about this if you prefer. It only solidifies the fact that Belichick systematically cheated and provides only a fandom basis (read: irrational) on your part to dislike the colts and dungy.Posted by underdogg

BOW WOW DOG!!!!!! What a leap of logic of the canyon of reality!!!!! JJ was right about EVERYONE in the league doing it!! JJ was also right about BB being WRONG to do it after the memo. There are still teams doing it now in the league too....just more clandestinely. EVERY team in the league does whatever they can to push the envelope and gain an edge (e.g. "enhanced" crowd noise, turning up the thermostat when the other team is sweating bullets and on IVs due to the flu...ring any bells??????). Your boys were damn lucky to win ONE ring with Gomer Pile as your QB...be happy with that.

Dogg you also cant provide proof that Mudd wasnt doing this with the Colts so you cant rule out the possibility that your team was cheating too. Now I am sure unlike Belichick Mudd stoped once the league sent the memo but you cant rule out the possibility. It seems like you are challenging Jimmy Johnson on this which just brings the question of what would Johnson gain by lying about Mudd? Nothing at all is the answer so why would he flat out lie about it? I dont think he would but you can think what you want. The last point I wasnt to make is that Dungy is a hyppcrite for a lot of reasons the least of which have anything to do with the game of football but thats a whole other post.

Tas, I could also say Belichick has an uncomfortable love of sheep. That can neither be proven nor disproved, but I've said it and now its out there.

I would think that with all of the negative unsubstantiated and never proven reporting that has befallen Belichick throughout the spygate ordeal, that you. as a belichick supporter, would have a signficant disdain for such things, but maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe you just want your pound of flesh.

It may be before your time, but there was this great scene in Blue Chips where some reporter says to basketball coash Nick Nolte, "It has been asserted that some of your recruits may have circumvented the eligibility rules," (or something like that) And Nick Nolte looks at him and says, "Well, Bob, if I assert that you sleep with sheep, then it has been asserted that you sleep with sheep. Be careful with what has been asserted, Bob."

That may not have been the exact conversation, but it was something like that. When you mentioned "uncomfortable love of sheep" it made me think of that movie.

A word to the wise -- you may be opening up a disturbing can of worms if you start dropping beastiality references in here. Folks who've never been west of Worcester have some odd ideas about what goes on in the flatlands.

Yes but dog even though most of the claims against Belichick are BS and can not be proved does stop you from bringing it up tounge in cheek at least 4 to 5 times a week so why should it stop us from calling out Mudd?